Radio Paradise depends on YOU

RP Listener Forum

RAFT  »   Climate Change
Post to this Topic
R_P
Apr 16, 2016 - 4:22pm

March temperature smashes 100-year global record
Average global temperature was 1.07C hotter - beating last month’s previous record increase
New Milestone: Earth Sees 11 Record Hot Months in a Row

 
black321  (A sunset in the desert)
Mar 24, 2016 - 9:12am

The SEC ruled that Exxon Mobil must include a climate change resolution at its annual shareholder vote. The proposal would force Exxon to detail risks that climate change could pose to its bottomline. Also, the Rockefeller Family Fund announced that it is dumping Exxon and other oil stocks from its portfolio, as it moves away from investments in the commodity that originally made the family fortune. The fund called out Exxon for “morally reprehensible conduct.”
 
R_P
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:09am

We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future 2

An influential group of scientists led by James Hansen, the former NASA scientist often credited with having drawn the first major attention to climate change in 1988 congressional testimony, has published a dire climate study that suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned.

The research invokes collapsing ice sheets, violent megastorms and even the hurling of boulders by giant waves in its quest to suggest that even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be far too much. Hansen has called it the most important work he has ever done.

The sweeping paper, 52 pages in length and with 19 authors, draws on evidence from ancient climate change or “paleo-climatology,” as well as climate experiments using computer models and some modern observations. Calling it a “paper” really isn’t quite right — it’s actually a synthesis of a wide range of old, and new, evidence.

“I think almost everybody who’s really familiar with both paleo and modern is now very concerned that we are approaching, if we have not passed, the points at which we have locked in really big changes for young people and future generations,” Hansen said in an interview.

The research, appearing Tuesday in the open-access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, has had a long and controversial path to life, having first appeared as a “discussion paper” in the same journal, subject to live, online peer review — a novel but increasingly influential form of scientific publishing. Hansen first told the press about the research last summer, before this process was completed, leading to criticism from some journalists and also fellow scientists that he might be jumping the gun.

What ensued was a high-profile debate, both because of the dramatic claims and Hansen’s formidable reputation. And his numerous co-authors, including Greenland and Antarctic ice experts and a leader of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were nothing to be sniffed at.

After record downloads for the study and an intense public review process, a revised version of the paper has now been accepted, according to both Hansen and Barbara Ferreira, media and communications manager for the European Geophysical Union, which publishes Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Indeed, the article is now freely readable on the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics website. (...)

 
R_P
Mar 13, 2016 - 10:25pm

February smashes global temperature record, says Nasa 2
Nasa announces February exceded historical average temperatures by more than any month in history, making it the third consecutive month to break the record


2015 Saw an Unprecedented Spike in CO2 Levels
 
R_P
Mar 11, 2016 - 2:11am

A sane but cautious Kasich...
 
R_P
Mar 6, 2016 - 10:21pm

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:
I watched a program on NOVA recently that was based in Snowmass, Colorado.
It referred to times past- "tens of thousands of years", when we had many Ice Ages that covered the earth.  Followed by mass retreats of glaciers with major warm/ hot trends.
All before there was influence by man.
There was Mammoth and Mastodon flatulence though.
And they were big. 

Also, I saw some photos a while back, that were taken by John Muir at Glacier Bay in Alaska.
These were taken sometime in the early 1900's I believe.
Someone pointed out on how these glacier's were in major retreat then... and they've are still retreating to his day.

Help me here... I'm confused.
Which doesn't take much I realize.
 
Those wouldn't have been real "Ice Ages", but colloquial "ice ages". The last Ice Age started 2.6 million years ago and won't end until there is no more permanent ice covering any continents (per definition). The fluctuations (glacial periods), within an Ice Age, of cooling and warming are respectively glacials and interglacials. The last 11,000 years are part of an interglacial (i.e. a warming period). Source

The current rate of warming is not in line with previous cycles of glacials/interglacials within the current Ice Age.
 
KurtfromLaQuinta  (Really deep in the heart of South California)
Mar 6, 2016 - 9:07pm

 oldviolin wrote:

But do you remember the last little ice age?

 
I watched a program on NOVA recently that was based in Snowmass, Colorado.
It referred to times past- "tens of thousands of years", when we had many Ice Ages that covered the earth.  Followed by mass retreats of glaciers with major warm/ hot trends.
All before there was influence by man.
There was Mammoth and Mastodon flatulence though.
And they were big. 

Also, I saw some photos a while back, that were taken by John Muir at Glacier Bay in Alaska.
These were taken sometime in the early 1900's I believe.
Someone pointed out on how these glacier's were in major retreat then... and they've are still retreating to his day.

Help me here... I'm confused.
Which doesn't take much I realize.

 
R_P
Mar 6, 2016 - 7:58pm

Justice Department Refers Exxon Investigation Request to FBI
Attempt by two California congressmen to prompt a federal investigation is passed to the FBI's criminal investigation unit.

The U.S. Justice Department has forwarded a request from two congressmen seeking a federal probe of ExxonMobil to the FBI's criminal division.

U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether the oil giant violated federal laws by "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change. (...)


 
R_P
Mar 1, 2016 - 6:38pm

“The Old Normal Is Gone”: February Shatters Global Temperature Records

Our planet’s preliminary February temperature data are in, and it’s now abundantly clear: Global warming is going into overdrive.

There are dozens of global temperature datasets, and usually I (and my climate journalist colleagues) wait until the official ones are released about the middle of the following month to announce a record-warm month at the global level. But this month’s data is so extraordinary that there’s no need to wait: February obliterated the all-time global temperature record set just last month.

Using unofficial data and adjusting for different base-line temperatures, it appears that February 2016 was likely somewhere between 1.15 and 1.4 degrees warmer than the long-term average, and about 0.2 degrees above last month—good enough for the most above-average month ever measured. (Since the globe had already warmed by about +0.45 degrees above pre-industrial levels during the 1981-2010 base-line meteorologists commonly use, that amount has been added to the data released today.)

Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until last October to reach the first 1.0 degree Celsius, and we’ve come as much as an extra 0.4 degrees further in just the last five months. Even accounting for the margin of error associated with these preliminary datasets, that means it’s virtually certain that February handily beat the record set just last month for the most anomalously warm month ever recorded. That’s stunning. (...)

Thank god it's only just a yuge Chinese conspiracy...
 
 
R_P
Jan 30, 2016 - 4:56pm

 ScottN wrote:
Make that Billions of tons of greenhouse gases...and other noxious pollutants.   But, hey it's an ocean of air; no problem....no cause and effect, just normal climate fluctuations.         {#Frustrated}


 
ScottN  (An inch above the K/T boundary. But smth near fracking still has appeal.)
Jan 30, 2016 - 10:11am

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Right. 10,000 years of human beings deforesting the planet and unearthing, burning and dumping into the atmosphere tens of thousands of tons of carbon have absolutely no influence on global temperatures. Right. Everything is fucking FINE.

 
Make that Billions of tons of greenhouse gases...and other noxious pollutants.   But, hey it's an ocean of air; no problem....no cause and effect, just normal climate fluctuations.         {#Frustrated}
 
oldviolin  (esse quam videri)
Jan 30, 2016 - 9:32am

 islander wrote:

I remember being buck toothed and skinny. 

 
But do you remember the last little ice age?
 
islander  (Seattle)
Jan 29, 2016 - 9:32pm

 oldviolin wrote:

I wish I had a million dollars
I wouldn't be sittin' here how
A two-tone Ricky Ricardo jacket and an autographed picture of Chairman Mao

 
I remember being buck toothed and skinny. 
 
oldviolin  (esse quam videri)
Jan 29, 2016 - 8:56pm

 Red_Dragon wrote:
Right. 10,000 years of human beings deforesting the planet and unearthing, burning and dumping into the atmosphere tens of thousands of tons of carbon have absolutely no influence on global temperatures. Right. Everything is fucking FINE.

 
I wish I had a million dollars
I wouldn't be sittin' here how
A two-tone Ricky Ricardo jacket and an autographed picture of Chairman Mao


 
R_P
Jan 25, 2016 - 8:40pm

Record hot 2015 gave us a glimpse at the future of global warming
An exceptionally hot year, 2015 shattered records, but will just be the norm in 15 years’ time

2015 smashed the record for hottest year by about 0.14°C. To put that into perspective, the previous two hottest years (2014 and 2010) only broke the prior records by 0.002°C, according to Berkeley Earth data. The only time the temperature record was shattered by such a large margin was in the monster El Niño year of 1998.

Various global surface temperature datasets, 1850–2015. Illustration: Zeke Hausfather

While the current El Niño event is also becoming monstrously strong, it’s only now reaching its peak intensity, and there’s an approximately 4-month lag before changes in El Niño are reflected in global surface temperature changes. Thus, the El Niño of 1998 had a greater warming influence than its 2015 counterpart. 2015 was nevertheless more than 0.2°C hotter than 1998, due to human-caused global warming.

As the graphic below shows (animated version here), there’s a consistent warming trend among El Niño years, La Niña years, and neutral years. Over the past 50 years, there’s a 0.16°C per decade trend among each category, and individual years fall close to those trend lines. That underlying human-caused global warming trend is what’s causing annual temperatures to so frequently break records, with 4 new record-hot years in the past decade.


Berkeley Earth average global surface temperatures since 1965 categorized by type of El Niño year. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
(...)

 
R_P
Jan 21, 2016 - 9:05am

 porphyrius wrote:
Just for sake of the "discussion", I did not say that there were no facts (however spurious) to support human causality in climate change, I just said that in my opinion, I don't think any of it is ultimately going to matter in a million years, or even a thousand years - maybe not even in a hundred. I also said that we should be better caretakers of our environment.

I honestly don't understand you, Mr Prins. If you wish to be taken seriously, and apparently you do, I don't see how you can believe that tossing emotionally propelled grenades into the forum is the best way to accomplish that.

And, as always, my opinions are only my opinions. They don't have to be yours.

 
The continued concern trolling for my reputation is just adorable. {#Mrgreen}

In a sufficiently large scale of time nothing really matters, so that isn't much of an argument. The sun will die in a few billion years and in the process it will incinerate the planet. The universe may not last forever, so don't bother getting off the planet either. So you know what, all things considered, let's do nothing whatsoever for any current problems that we are facing.

"I might just die in a car crash or of some horrible disease in the next few years, so why work or save money? In fact, why live at all and not simply end it right now. The end is after all inevitable."
 
porphyrius
Jan 21, 2016 - 8:49am

 RichardPrins wrote:

I mostly see redirects towards me, especially in the face of facts that dismiss your typed 'arguments'.

 
Just for sake of the "discussion", I did not say that there were no facts (however spurious) to support human causality in climate change, I just said that in my opinion, I don't think any of it is ultimately going to matter in a million years, or even a thousand years - maybe not even in a hundred. I also said that we should be better caretakers of our environment.

I honestly don't understand you, Mr Prins. If you wish to be taken seriously, and apparently you do, I don't see how you can believe that tossing emotionally propelled grenades into the forum is the best way to accomplish that.

And, as always, my opinions are only my opinions. They don't have to be yours.

 




 
R_P
Jan 21, 2016 - 8:26am

 porphyrius wrote:
I'm guessing you don't really want to discuss it. That's OK. But try to chill out on the snark, if you can. I don't think its a good selling point for you.

Ironically, the only original words I have seen from you are insults - the rest of your post you have let someone else do the work. If that is merely a stylistic quirk of yours, rather than a complete abdication of actual thought, I'm afraid I'm not getting it.

So, how about we just forget about it?

 
I mostly see redirects towards me, especially in the face of facts that dismiss your typed 'arguments'.
 
porphyrius
Jan 21, 2016 - 8:23am

 RichardPrins wrote:
 porphyrius wrote:

Strange. I don't believe it is me that has failed to "come up with a more coherent argument". I assure you that I do not know what "repetitive petty bait" you refer to - but I must admit it sounds a little unfriendly, doesn't it?  I claimed I wanted, (and I still do, or hope for, anyway), a productive intellectual discussion. I further stated that I would only respond if there appeared to be an unwarranted attack on me personally, rather than a sharing of ideas. Yet somehow, after merely stating my opinion, and inviting further discourse on an admittedly difficult subject, due to the passions that seem to always accompany it, I find you tossing links to a rather poorly done website at me, as if that alone vindicated your actual thoughts on the matter, which, to the best of my knowledge, you have as of yet failed to share. Surely, you don't expect to be taken seriously if this is the best you can muster.

Those traits, Mr Prins, would normally mark you as no better than a forum troll. However, I would truly like to see some original thought displayed by you, and therefore welcome any further enlightening comments or thoughts you may have regarding climate change. I certainly don't claim the forum as mine, or even that I have been wronged - I simply think that you perhaps did not put your best foot forward.


Another aggrieved "victim" speaks (that apparently is blind to his own ad homs as well as the inanity of his arguments). Pretty ironic too, coming from a turd that was flushed one that was banned from the forum previously. That, and the strong stench of sanctimony. Nothing new on-topic of course, although I don't think that was (or will be) really in the cards anyway.

PS: However, since you appear to enjoy denial (along with a steaming side dish of vigorous handwaving), here's something (again) with a bit more substance...




 
I'm guessing you don't really want to discuss it. That's OK. But try to chill out on the snark, if you can. I don't think its a good selling point for you.

Ironically, the only original words I have seen from you are insults - the rest of your post you have let someone else do the work. If that is merely a stylistic quirk of yours, rather than a complete abdication of actual thought, I'm afraid I'm not getting it.

So, how about we just forget about it?


 
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 71, 72, 73  Next